Re: Hash grouping, aggregates - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruno Wolff III
Subject Re: Hash grouping, aggregates
Date
Msg-id 20030211164404.GA32571@wolff.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hash grouping, aggregates  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Hash grouping, aggregates  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:41:53 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> > So one of the items on the TODO list is "Add hash for evaluating GROUP BY
> > aggregates (Tom)" 
> 
> It's done in CVS tip ... give it a try.
> 
> > The neat thing is that hash aggregates would allow grouping on data types that
> > have = operators but no useful < operator.
> 
> Hm.  Right now I think that would barf on you, because the parser wants
> to find the '<' operator to label the grouping column with, even if the
> planner later decides not to use it.  It'd take some redesign of the
> query data structure (specifically SortClause/GroupClause) to avoid that.

I think another issue is that for some = operators you still might not
be able to use a hash. I would expect the discussion for hash joins in
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/xoper-optimization.html
would to hash aggregates as well.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] PostgreSQL Benchmarks)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash grouping, aggregates